6 ms·

The biggest misconception in most people (at least from my perspective from conversations involving evolution) is what constitutes a scientific theory, By defin

The biggest misconception in most people (at least from my perspective from conversations involving evolution) is what constitutes a scientific theory, By definition from [1] , "A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested. ". People I speak to think its just a theory, hence a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven etc, where as its actually the opposite of that, i.e we can test the predictions it makes, its as close to being proven as anything can be. If people can simply recognize the definition I bet more people can learn and accept Evolution. [2] explains this better. [1]: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory [2]: http://www.notjustatheory.com/ http://www.notjustatheory.com/

sz4kerto 12y ago
I keep telling these people that we have things like number theory as well that's as hard science as it can get :) - and it's still a theory. I'm not sure how 'strong' is the word 'theory' in English though, but in my mother tongue it definitely has the feeling of being a 'guess'.
- ashark 12y ago
  In informal English communication "theory" is a synonym for "hypothesis". It's also far more commonly used in everyday communication than hypothesis, which looks/sounds more formal or technical.
  - hsitz 12y ago
    This is mostly the problem, I think. In this sense, both 'theory' and 'hypothesis' are antonyms of 'fact'. Leads directly to uninformed people saying that evolution hasn't been established as a fact, or that it's not "true".
- Ar-Curunir 12y ago
  Mathematics is not a science, and number 'theory' is not theory as meant in the sciences. Unlike in science, where enough evidence for a particular hypothesis makes it generally believed to be true, in math empirical evidence is not and will never be enough to classify a statement as true.
- AngrySkillzz 12y ago
  Yeah, in English I'd say the word 'theory' has three distinct meanings. A guess, as in 'I have a theory about this;' a scientific theory, i.e. set of testable hypotheses, etc.; and a set of related propositions that form a cohesive subject (like number theory).
cbd1984 12y ago
More to the point: Theories don't become laws, theories generate laws; testing those laws is a test of the theory. Laws are mathematical equations which relate observable quantities such that we get quantitative predictions. The Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT, is one example: It relates Pressure (P), Volume (V), number of moles of gas (n), a physical constant (R), and Temperature (T) such that we can predict the values of certain traits, or the relationships between traits, given some known or hypothesized values for the other traits. The theory it's part of is the one that says gasses are made out of tiny particles called atoms or molecules, which fly around freely and bounce off each other and solid surfaces with a speed proportional to their temperature. Every time the Ideal Gas Law makes a good prediction, that theory gets validated.
- scott_s 12y ago
  I'm going to have to disagree. There's no meaningful distinction between "laws" and "theories". One famous consequence of the theory of special relativity is the mass-energy equation - but we do not call E = mc^2 a "law". We just say it's a part of the theory of special relativity. That, however, does not mean the theory of relativity and E = mc^2 has a lower status than Newton's law of universal gravitation and F = (G m1 m2 )/r. That we call one a "theory" and the other a "law" is just an accident of speech. It's not even a difference of semantics - in this context, "law" and "theory" have the same meaning. We just continue to say "law" for some things for historical reasons.
  - Avshalom 12y ago
    We call it the law of conservation of mass. Or well its a limit case, but yeah we absolutely do call it a law. Theory is the explanation, law is the model.
    - scott_s 12y ago
      The distinction you propose is demonstrably not true in modern theories. (Where "modern" means a bit over 100 years old.) We call such things a law, but there is no difference between a theory and a law. Such "laws" just predate our current philosophy of science, and we continue using names like "the Ideal Gas Law" because we always have. If someone came up with an equivalent thing now, we would not use the term "law" - which we can observe with physics from the 20th century.
tunesmith 12y ago
This is one of those things where a whole lot of redundant societal arguments and misunderstandings could be averted if we just used two different words for the two different concepts.
- maskedinvader 12y ago
  exactly my thoughts too. If only we can use 2 different words... sigh The real problem is however a philosophical one, how to drive down the point that there is no absolute truth,just absolute contradiction that disproves a (now disfunct) scientific theory . Unless you are making certain axiomatic assumptions or using the constructs of language for example 'all single men are bachelors', the best we can do is let our best theories make predictions and then conduct experiments to test those predictions.
- RexRollman 12y ago
  Well said.
pcrh 12y ago
This is literally semantics. The vast majority of people know what an "accepted fact" is, and they also know what a "proposed model of reality" is (even if they don't use such phrases). The opposition to evolutionary theory as a model of reality is a topic that principally obsesses only a specific population: American Protestants. In most of the Western world, including in the Catholic Church with its over 1 billion adherents, evolution is an "accepted fact" (or "scientific theory" however that may be rendered semantically).
- astrodust 12y ago
  Some propose using the word theorem to differentiate between these two meanings.
  - tjradcliffe 12y ago
    I wrote a novel based in part around the idea that one could prove something like Boltzmann's H-theorem (which has problems of its own) for evolution: http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Theorem-TJ-Radcliffe-ebook/dp/B00KBH5O8K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421271824&sr=8-1&keywords=darwin%27s+theorem http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Theorem-TJ-Radcliffe-ebook/dp/... Darwin's Theorem would start with the facts about genetic material--the probability distributions for replication--and use further distributions of features, consequences for reproductive advantage, and so on to demonstrate that it is mathematically necessary for evolution to give access to a more-or-less unbounded adaptive landscape. The book is actually mostly about sex, violence, politics, religion, regret and redemption, so it's not as dry as that probably makes it sound!
- redblacktree 12y ago
  I have absolutely heard people say, "Evolution is just a theory"
- scott_s 12y ago
  It's not just semantics. Maybe some times it is, but not always, and I even think, not usually. Many people don't actually understand the basics of scientific theories, evidence and falsification. It requires going beyond learning just the "scientific process", and going into the actual philosophy of science. In my experience, that is not commonly known.
nyrulez 12y ago
Thanks. Is there a resource or a book on amazon that focuses on the testability of inter-species evolution ? I've been a bit frustrated by this as most people just allude to the fact that it took thousands or millions of years so hard to test it - but we should extra-polate some observed lab principles at a much tinier and then scale the intuition by a billion times to get inter species evolution. Specifically are there any: 1. Simulations (i.e. code up the actors in the system and let it proceed it a accelerated time scale similar to what we do for space simulations for heavenly bodies) 2. Emulations (not computational but demonstrating using a real life model of some kind) 3. Lab demonstrations of this happening 4. Reproductions of the whole set of mechanisms that allow a species to evolve into something new that we would classify as a different species that clearly show the evolution principles in effect for a reasonably complex inter-species case. I have been frustrated from Richard Dawkins's accounts too. I once read his essay on how the eye might have evolved. His accounts tend to be so speculative and full of "should"s and "must"s, its very off putting. Edit: This book in fact is the best writing on evolution of eyes: http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Witness-How-Eyes-Evolved/dp/0195369742/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Witness-How-Eyes-Evolved/dp... But it completely skips the actual mechanism or testability of anything it says. So basically doesn't address the how at all. A resource that actually addresses the HOW and not just conjecture on the WHAT would be really cool.
- svachalek 12y ago
  I think the fundamental problem is that "species" is a way for human to divide up organisms, rather than a fundamental function of biology or evolution. Every organism has its own DNA but "species" is a way of trying to group those into patterns that make sense to humans. That is, it's easy enough to demonstrate that evolution drives changes in DNA. That's objective. Whether or not you call it a species change is subjective.
  - nyrulez 12y ago
    Let me phrase the question a different way - since species seems to be overloaded. What stable state of organism led to the evolution of Giraffe ? Lets call that organism X. (I actually don't know what X is, is it a horse or a zebra or a donkey?) Is there a simulation that would demonstrate X evolving to a Giraffe or test it ? Or put another way, if we were to take some snapshots at times where we could consider the organism to be different enough according to the modern "species" classification say A -> B -> C -> D -> E, is there a way to test D -> E or B-> C using the stated principles/theory ?
DanBC 12y ago
The fact that people don't understand the word "theory" is worrying because it's a flag that they don't understand scientific method. People don't know that a "hypothesis" is the guessing[1] part and that a hypothesis supported by experimental evidence becomes a theory - it becomes less of a guess. Popular science programmes or reporting fail to explain this and reporting often uses the word theory to mean "has a hunch". [1] supported by principles I guess.
- iskander 12y ago
  Sometimes "hypothesis" persists well past the guessing phase (e.g. "The Hygiene Hypothesis" is pretty well supported, even if it's not a complete explanation of autoimmunity and allergies)
- scott_s 12y ago
  I don't think your explanation is quite right, either. Typically, a "hypothesis" is in the form of "we think x will happen in y circumstance". Then they run some experiments to see if that's the case. If it is, then they may try to come up with a theory to explain why, then run (many) additional experiments to test the theory. In other words, I usually use the word "hypothesis" to mean a simple prediction of outcome, without any explanation of how. A "theory" needs some explanation in it, not just a prediction of correlation.
mrfusion 12y ago
Yeah, I agree. I also think getting people everywhere to change the meanings of words is an uphill, possibly impossible battle. We can't even teach people about figurative vs literally. I think Scientists should give up and get rid of the word "theory". Scientists had no problem renaming the brontosaurus so it shouldn't be as hard as it sounds.

sz4kerto 12y ago

I keep telling these people that we have things like number theory as well that's as hard science as it can get :) - and it's still a theory. I'm not sure how 'strong' is the word 'theory' in English though, but in my mother tongue it definitely has the feeling of being a 'guess'.

ashark 12y ago
In informal English communication "theory" is a synonym for "hypothesis". It's also far more commonly used in everyday communication than hypothesis, which looks/sounds more formal or technical.
- hsitz 12y ago
  This is mostly the problem, I think. In this sense, both 'theory' and 'hypothesis' are antonyms of 'fact'. Leads directly to uninformed people saying that evolution hasn't been established as a fact, or that it's not "true".
Ar-Curunir 12y ago
Mathematics is not a science, and number 'theory' is not theory as meant in the sciences. Unlike in science, where enough evidence for a particular hypothesis makes it generally believed to be true, in math empirical evidence is not and will never be enough to classify a statement as true.
AngrySkillzz 12y ago
Yeah, in English I'd say the word 'theory' has three distinct meanings. A guess, as in 'I have a theory about this;' a scientific theory, i.e. set of testable hypotheses, etc.; and a set of related propositions that form a cohesive subject (like number theory).

cbd1984 12y ago

More to the point: Theories don't become laws, theories generate laws; testing those laws is a test of the theory. Laws are mathematical equations which relate observable quantities such that we get quantitative predictions. The Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT, is one example: It relates Pressure (P), Volume (V), number of moles of gas (n), a physical constant (R), and Temperature (T) such that we can predict the values of certain traits, or the relationships between traits, given some known or hypothesized values for the other traits. The theory it's part of is the one that says gasses are made out of tiny particles called atoms or molecules, which fly around freely and bounce off each other and solid surfaces with a speed proportional to their temperature. Every time the Ideal Gas Law makes a good prediction, that theory gets validated.

scott_s 12y ago
I'm going to have to disagree. There's no meaningful distinction between "laws" and "theories". One famous consequence of the theory of special relativity is the mass-energy equation - but we do not call E = mc^2 a "law". We just say it's a part of the theory of special relativity. That, however, does not mean the theory of relativity and E = mc^2 has a lower status than Newton's law of universal gravitation and F = (G m1 m2 )/r. That we call one a "theory" and the other a "law" is just an accident of speech. It's not even a difference of semantics - in this context, "law" and "theory" have the same meaning. We just continue to say "law" for some things for historical reasons.
- Avshalom 12y ago
  We call it the law of conservation of mass. Or well its a limit case, but yeah we absolutely do call it a law. Theory is the explanation, law is the model.
  - scott_s 12y ago
    The distinction you propose is demonstrably not true in modern theories. (Where "modern" means a bit over 100 years old.) We call such things a law, but there is no difference between a theory and a law. Such "laws" just predate our current philosophy of science, and we continue using names like "the Ideal Gas Law" because we always have. If someone came up with an equivalent thing now, we would not use the term "law" - which we can observe with physics from the 20th century.

tunesmith 12y ago

This is one of those things where a whole lot of redundant societal arguments and misunderstandings could be averted if we just used two different words for the two different concepts.

maskedinvader 12y ago
exactly my thoughts too. If only we can use 2 different words... sigh The real problem is however a philosophical one, how to drive down the point that there is no absolute truth,just absolute contradiction that disproves a (now disfunct) scientific theory . Unless you are making certain axiomatic assumptions or using the constructs of language for example 'all single men are bachelors', the best we can do is let our best theories make predictions and then conduct experiments to test those predictions.
RexRollman 12y ago
Well said.

pcrh 12y ago

This is literally semantics. The vast majority of people know what an "accepted fact" is, and they also know what a "proposed model of reality" is (even if they don't use such phrases). The opposition to evolutionary theory as a model of reality is a topic that principally obsesses only a specific population: American Protestants. In most of the Western world, including in the Catholic Church with its over 1 billion adherents, evolution is an "accepted fact" (or "scientific theory" however that may be rendered semantically).

astrodust 12y ago
Some propose using the word theorem to differentiate between these two meanings.
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  I wrote a novel based in part around the idea that one could prove something like Boltzmann's H-theorem (which has problems of its own) for evolution: http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Theorem-TJ-Radcliffe-ebook/dp/B00KBH5O8K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421271824&sr=8-1&keywords=darwin%27s+theorem http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Theorem-TJ-Radcliffe-ebook/dp/... Darwin's Theorem would start with the facts about genetic material--the probability distributions for replication--and use further distributions of features, consequences for reproductive advantage, and so on to demonstrate that it is mathematically necessary for evolution to give access to a more-or-less unbounded adaptive landscape. The book is actually mostly about sex, violence, politics, religion, regret and redemption, so it's not as dry as that probably makes it sound!
redblacktree 12y ago
I have absolutely heard people say, "Evolution is just a theory"
scott_s 12y ago
It's not just semantics. Maybe some times it is, but not always, and I even think, not usually. Many people don't actually understand the basics of scientific theories, evidence and falsification. It requires going beyond learning just the "scientific process", and going into the actual philosophy of science. In my experience, that is not commonly known.

nyrulez 12y ago

Thanks. Is there a resource or a book on amazon that focuses on the testability of inter-species evolution ? I've been a bit frustrated by this as most people just allude to the fact that it took thousands or millions of years so hard to test it - but we should extra-polate some observed lab principles at a much tinier and then scale the intuition by a billion times to get inter species evolution. Specifically are there any: 1. Simulations (i.e. code up the actors in the system and let it proceed it a accelerated time scale similar to what we do for space simulations for heavenly bodies) 2. Emulations (not computational but demonstrating using a real life model of some kind) 3. Lab demonstrations of this happening 4. Reproductions of the whole set of mechanisms that allow a species to evolve into something new that we would classify as a different species that clearly show the evolution principles in effect for a reasonably complex inter-species case. I have been frustrated from Richard Dawkins's accounts too. I once read his essay on how the eye might have evolved. His accounts tend to be so speculative and full of "should"s and "must"s, its very off putting. Edit: This book in fact is the best writing on evolution of eyes: http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Witness-How-Eyes-Evolved/dp/0195369742/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Witness-How-Eyes-Evolved/dp... But it completely skips the actual mechanism or testability of anything it says. So basically doesn't address the how at all. A resource that actually addresses the HOW and not just conjecture on the WHAT would be really cool.

svachalek 12y ago
I think the fundamental problem is that "species" is a way for human to divide up organisms, rather than a fundamental function of biology or evolution. Every organism has its own DNA but "species" is a way of trying to group those into patterns that make sense to humans. That is, it's easy enough to demonstrate that evolution drives changes in DNA. That's objective. Whether or not you call it a species change is subjective.
- nyrulez 12y ago
  Let me phrase the question a different way - since species seems to be overloaded. What stable state of organism led to the evolution of Giraffe ? Lets call that organism X. (I actually don't know what X is, is it a horse or a zebra or a donkey?) Is there a simulation that would demonstrate X evolving to a Giraffe or test it ? Or put another way, if we were to take some snapshots at times where we could consider the organism to be different enough according to the modern "species" classification say A -> B -> C -> D -> E, is there a way to test D -> E or B-> C using the stated principles/theory ?

DanBC 12y ago

The fact that people don't understand the word "theory" is worrying because it's a flag that they don't understand scientific method. People don't know that a "hypothesis" is the guessing[1] part and that a hypothesis supported by experimental evidence becomes a theory - it becomes less of a guess. Popular science programmes or reporting fail to explain this and reporting often uses the word theory to mean "has a hunch". [1] supported by principles I guess.

iskander 12y ago
Sometimes "hypothesis" persists well past the guessing phase (e.g. "The Hygiene Hypothesis" is pretty well supported, even if it's not a complete explanation of autoimmunity and allergies)
scott_s 12y ago
I don't think your explanation is quite right, either. Typically, a "hypothesis" is in the form of "we think x will happen in y circumstance". Then they run some experiments to see if that's the case. If it is, then they may try to come up with a theory to explain why, then run (many) additional experiments to test the theory. In other words, I usually use the word "hypothesis" to mean a simple prediction of outcome, without any explanation of how. A "theory" needs some explanation in it, not just a prediction of correlation.

mrfusion 12y ago

Yeah, I agree. I also think getting people everywhere to change the meanings of words is an uphill, possibly impossible battle. We can't even teach people about figurative vs literally. I think Scientists should give up and get rid of the word "theory". Scientists had no problem renaming the brontosaurus so it shouldn't be as hard as it sounds.